We are like a conscience for the justice system. There has been a tendency over the last twenty to thirty years for the justice system to respond to crime by passing more laws, harsher laws and harsher penalties. The John Howard Society says "Let's look at the evidence. What do we want to accomplish? How do we make our communities safer?" The federal government really hasn't helped with things that prevent young people from getting involved in crime:things like adequate housing, jobs, literacy,food in your belly,things like that. These are pretty fundamental things, and they're missing from the lives of many people who end up on the wrong side of the law. For every dollar spent on programs to prevent crime-like community development and recreation for young people-society would save 7 to 20 on the justice system that deals with crime. Prevention makes good sense economically, it makes good sense socially, and it's the right thing to do But it's not the politically popular thing to do Politicians want something quick and easy. They want to win the next election.

This passage argues that focusing on crime prevention, rather than harsher penalties, is a more effective and economically sound approach to reducing crime. Here's a breakdown of the key points:<br /><br />* **Critique of Current Trend:** The justice system's increasing reliance on stricter laws and harsher penalties over the past few decades is questioned. The passage implies this approach hasn't effectively addressed the root causes of crime.<br /><br />* **Focus on Evidence and Goals:** The John Howard Society's call to examine evidence and desired outcomes suggests a need for a more data-driven and goal-oriented approach to crime reduction.<br /><br />* **Lack of Government Support for Prevention:** The passage criticizes the federal government for neglecting social programs that address fundamental needs like housing, employment, literacy, and food security. These factors are linked to crime, and their absence is seen as contributing to the problem.<br /><br />* **Economic Benefits of Prevention:** Investing in crime prevention programs is presented as economically advantageous. The passage claims that for every dollar spent on prevention, society saves $7 to $20 on the costs associated with the justice system.<br /><br />* **Social Benefits and Ethical Considerations:** Beyond economic benefits, the passage argues that crime prevention is socially beneficial and ethically the right course of action.<br /><br />* **Political Obstacles:** The passage acknowledges the political challenges of prioritizing crime prevention. Politicians often favor quick, visible solutions to appeal to voters, even if those solutions are less effective in the long run. Long-term preventative measures may not yield immediate results that can be touted before the next election.<br /><br /><br />In essence, the passage advocates for a shift in focus from reaction (harsher penalties) to prevention (addressing social and economic factors that contribute to crime). It frames this shift not only as fiscally responsible but also as socially just and ethically sound.<br />